Wait a minute! He had an ironclad inference in there – I heard it.
What about putting mimes in food processors?
Yes, he did.
And rather than everyone addressing that issue, some try to defend the literal claim as though it’s defensible and others attack the literal claim as though gainsaying it proves something.
No one I can see is screaming anything. At the very least, there would have to be some posts with ALL CAPS or multiple exclamation points!!! or something.
As for your argument, I don’t buy it. Anyone who’s ever listened to Rush for more than five minutes knows that innuendo is his stock in trade. I just wish people would stop getting so upset about him. Large radio audience or not, he seems hell-bent on making himself irrelevant to serious political discourse, and he’s well on his way to becoming the sort of laughingstock that Paul Harvey, who pioneered this sort of thing, became in his later years. In any event, substitute ‘comparable’ or ‘on the same level as’ in the OPs title, and it acccurately enough describes what Lamebaugh was going for there, IMO.
Anyway, c’mon, folks; I seriously doubt that Rand Rover or Shodan really give a rat’s ass about this issue; they just can’t allow themselves to ever miss an opportunity to wind up some people they just love to hate.
You went way out on a limb, Stoid.
I read your quote. He did not equate liberals to murderers and rapists. The point he was making was very clear, and he even repeated it at the end:
The issue was raised in the thread title. There wasn’t much more to the OP than a misleading title and some abuse. And a subsequent post was from the administrator who previously identified another misleading title (about a topic she cared about), and no warning was issued. So, apparently, the thread title was OK.
Cool. Stoid starts a thread with intent to mislead and irritate. Rand and I point out the obvious. And here we are.
If you would like to start a thread entitled “Rush Limbaugh Says He Doesn’t Care About the Motives of Democrats And Wants to Use All Constitutionally Legitimate Means To Defeat Them Within the Arena of Ideas” , feel free, but I don’t think it will fit in the title space.
You do realize that Stoid edited the transcript and removed this -
without bothering with ellipses, do you not?
Regards,
Shodan
If liberals were murderers ,Rush would have been gone long ago.
Well, that was a trenchant insight.
Who helped you?
Regards,
Shodan
I think it’s the second. It’s his way of lying to reframe the debate.
Like he did about the thread title.
Poor misunderstood Rush.
So, really, Rush was being pretty gentle to liberals…
Well, that’s certainly reassuring! So he fully intends to stick to the honorable course of lies, slime, slander, and innuendo? He has no intention of invoking his authority as a drug-addled fart zeppelin?
Since he has no power to do otherwise, what does it matter that he declares that he will not do things he has no power to do anyway?
Well, OK. To further the cause of justice and freedom, I will continue to refuse all offers of abject, hot monkey love from Salma Hayek.
Well, it was their own choice to put all that Objectivist philosophy in their music and…
What? What do you mean someone’s already done that joke in this thread? Ohhhh…
Never mind!
[size] matters.
You know, if you were a starving Third-World baby, you wouldn’t even have to ASK to latch on…
Edited: See if I ever offer you a(n ironically) straight line again, luci…
If you want to condemn somebody for their irresponsible rhetoric it behooves you not to use a deceptive title or misquote the person you’re condemning.
The thread title does not mislead. Rush plainly invited his listeners to infer equivalency. The wording of the thread title merely shows that stoid correctly identified what Rush was inviting his listeners to infer (and Bricker also identified it).
Well, to be fair, she did put it in the form of a question. If anyone wishes to suggest that she (and Bricker) guessed wrong, please feel free to post what inferences Rush was inviting…
Because of course that completely exonerates the person in question and we don’t have to talk about him at all.
This holds no water, I’m afraid. Fox News routinely misuses the question mark in the same way. “Obama a terrorist?” Pretending it’s an innocent question is just being disingenuous.
It always behooves, especially when the subject has hooves. Or trotters, in this instance…
But the strict compliance with propriety, or lack thereof, by someone commenting on the Orca of the Airwaves has no bearing on the subject itself. If I observe every possible nicety of rhetoric, he’s still a lying sack.